> >
> > yes, but they do not share it between different binaries - for example
> > when you run ls from shell you get 2 copies of c library functions
> 
> Who cares?  It does not necessarily matter.
> 
> IIRC, others have shown (on the m86k) that statically linking some
> binaries can actually improve performance (with the likes of comile
> jobs).
because of no need of ld-so processing.
it could be faster in case of slow-CPU and lot of RAM/fast disk like in
m68k.
 > You have to look at the big picture, not just how many instances of a
> given set of instructions might be on disk, or even in core in any given
> instant.

there is not a problem if there is 2 times on disk, but if it's on memory
two times. reducing working code set will pay dividents on any hardware,
and on alpha 1000Mhz with 1GB RAM TOO! because more will fit in CPU cache.

trying to make code smaller is always GOOD. talking about that my computer
is not the last rocket with 1GB RAM is a poor excuse. just compare
16kB /bin/ls filesize with >200kB of static linked one!

this is over 10 times larger!!!!

in the other hand i can't understand why over 200kB of code is needed for
ls from C library?!

is C library so weak organized or i missed something?